-
by Admin
17 December 2025 5:02 AM
In a detailed and strongly worded judgment delivered by Calcutta High Court held that parties who had already been adjudicated as licensees in an earlier Thika Tenancy proceeding could not re-litigate the same issue under the guise of a tenancy appeal. A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi invoked the principle of res judicata and dismissed the first appeal filed by Nawal Sultania & Others, who had challenged an eviction decree passed in Title Suit No. 134 of 2016.
The Court categorically declared: “The issue as to whether the appellants were licensees under the respondents in respect of the suit property was directly and substantially in issue in WPLRT 76 of 2022... Such issue has been conclusively decided... and is binding upon the parties to the present First Appeal.” [Para 37]
Dismissing the argument that the two litigations involved different contexts, the Court held that the core issue — the nature of occupation under Exhibits 3 and 4 — had already been adjudicated, and therefore could not be reopened in a fresh proceeding merely by changing the statutory lens.
“The Licence Agreement Can’t Morph into a Lease by Repeated Re-Litigation”: Court Rejects Tenancy Plea, Upholds Eviction
The appellants had urged the Court to treat their occupation of the suit property as that of monthly tenants, relying on alleged rent payments, long possession, and certain clauses in Exhibits 3 and 4, which they claimed indicated exclusive possession and tenancy rights.
But the High Court firmly rejected this argument, noting that these very documents had already been analysed by the West Bengal Land Reforms Tribunal in WPLRT No. 76 of 2022, which had concluded that they created a licence, not a lease. The Tribunal’s decision had been challenged up to the Supreme Court, which had dismissed the SLP (C) No. 21773 of 2023, thereby lending finality to the ruling.
Reiterating that there is no second opportunity to reframe an already decided question, the Court held: “On interpretation of Exhibits 3 and 4, the Court rendering the judgment and order dated July 5, 2023... has, in respect of the same immovable property, in a proceeding between the same parties, held that the documents created a license in favour of the appellants.” [Para 33]
The judges stressed that the legal test for res judicata, as laid down in Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer, was satisfied, as the matter was directly and substantially in issue, was necessary to the earlier decision, and had been finally decided.
“You Cannot Take Inconsistent Stands in Different Forums — Tenancy, Then Thika Tenancy, Now Tenancy Again?”: Court Criticises Litigation Strategy
The Court expressed concern over the shifting legal positions taken by the appellants across various proceedings. In earlier rounds, they had claimed to be tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, then sought to invoke Thika Tenancy rights under the 2001 Act, and in the present appeal returned to the original stand of monthly tenancy.
Calling out this conduct, the Court observed:
“The writ petitioners had taken the stand that the premises concerned was governed by the Act of 1997 in three different civil suits... Having taken a stand of tenancy they cannot be allowed to take a different stand before a different forum. They cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time.” [Para 23]
This inconsistency, the Court noted, was not merely procedural but undermined the credibility of the appellants' case, especially when the legal question had already been settled through a binding judicial pronouncement.
“Additional Evidence Can’t Reopen What Has Been Settled in Law”: Court Declines to Consider Fresh Material
The appeal had also included applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, with both parties seeking to introduce fresh evidence. But the Court refused to entertain these applications, stating that no additional evidence could undo a final adjudication on the central issue.
“Since the central legal issue (licence vs tenancy) has already been concluded in prior proceedings, additional evidence is not necessary.” [Para 6]
The Court held that even if new facts or documents were produced, they could not override the res judicata effect of the earlier judgment, especially where the same documents (Exhibits 3 and 4) were already interpreted judicially.
“Right to Possess Does Not Equal Right to Stay Indefinitely”: Court Says Eviction Must Follow
In affirming the eviction decree dated 30 September 2020, the Court rejected all arguments by the appellants suggesting that their possession had become irrevocable due to the passage of time or the nature of their occupation. The Court found that:
The respondents had repeatedly extended the licence period from 1997 to 2009, and
The appellants were always aware that the agreements did not confer tenancy rights.
“The licensees had never been in exclusive possession. Licensors had retained possession. There had been pre-existing structures at the property concerned.” [WPLRT Judgment, quoted in Para 32]
The Court also rejected the theory that rights could be created merely by payment of electricity charges or alterations in structure, holding that such acts did not transform a license into a lease, nor override the express terms of the agreements.
“When the Law Says the Door Is Closed, You Cannot Open a Window to Enter Again”: Appeal Dismissed, Eviction Decree Upheld
Summing up, the Court found no legal error in the eviction decree and held that the appellants’ effort to reopen a settled issue amounted to abuse of process. The First Appeal was dismissed in totality, and the Trial Court’s findings were affirmed:
“In view of the discussions above, the impugned judgement and decree dated September 30, 2022... is affirmed. FA 63 of 2022 is dismissed. All connected applications are disposed of.” [Para 40]
This ruling ends a prolonged and multi-forum battle over possession of the suit property, with the High Court refusing to allow successive recharacterisations of occupation rights merely to avoid eviction.
Date of Decision: 24 September 2025
